Find Now, Log Later?

No; the real problem occurs when a gung-ho geocacher feels obliged to rescue the cache, cuts a hole through the fence, lowers himself down, reaches for the cache ... and gets hit by a train. Darwin wins again!

Well, I suppose that's one way to guarantee that another of the geocache listing services would enjoy a huge surge in popularity.

Just say you are "geocaching." Most people unfamiliar with the term won't want to appear unknowledgeable; they'll just say "oh" and walk away in a state of confusion. If geocaching is a legitimate activity, there should be no reason to lie about one's activities. I think the real reason adults lie about their geocaching activities is because they are embarrassed to admit that they are simply playing a "hide-go-seek" game.

MOCs were created to address this issue. There is an audit trail to see who visited the page. There is/was also a fault in the system that allows people who use PQs to access MOC information without being added to the audit trail. That fault needs to be addressed, if it hasn't already. (Many people have been enticed to purchase memberships specifically for this feature, so it should do what it is advertised to do.) While the audit trail doesn't provide real security, it does narrow down the list of suspects quite nicely. TPTB have stated many times that their basic concept of the game is an "open concept" where membership is not required and most information is freely available to the general public. To borrow a "solution" we see offered in these forums so very often, anyone who doesn't agree with that most basic concept should feel free to create their own website and do things their way.

Which cache was that? I don't recall seeing it. I agree that most people wouldn't bother to e-mail someone for coordinates ... there are "plenty of fish in the sea."

Just keep in mind that many geocachers don't want to spend any significant amount of time searching for a cache, especially if they had to walk more than 1/4 mile to the cache location. Rather than conducting a methodical, organized search, they'll immediately go into "seek-and-destroy" mode. If the hike to the "secret spot" is substantial enough, that would tend to limit the number of people seeking your cache.

But the best caches of this type are designed to fit through the holes in the fence and dangle down by a wire or "invisible" filament.

Probably the majority of us have seen caches where the coordinates appear to place the cache in the middle of an interstate highway, river, etc., where the cache was actually safely hidden on an overpass. I presume your cache page would state that the cache is hidden on a public right-of-way, that people should not trespass on railroad property, that there is no need to trespass on railroad property, and that trespassing on railroad property is a Federal offense. A note to the approver at the time the cache is submitted that discloses the true facts surrounding the hide should minimize any delay in the approval process.

I think you should send a copy of that question to the guy that placed the final stage of the Hasenclever Iron cache.

The etiquette? As I understand it, it is now considered "poor form" to hide lousy film canisters in the manner described. If, however, the cache hider had used a bison capsule (or something similarly "radical"), then the cache would be considered "cutting edge" and would be "really cool."

Excellent. I agree. When I reach that point I leave. It's no longer fun. I agree, as well ... it is wrong to be destructive. But as stated above, expecting to find a cache with 3 or more difficulty stars in an hour or less is an indication that the person had not properly planned for the search ... it in no way indicates that there was anything wrong with the cache, its description, or "the system."

4 difficulty stars indicates it could very well take all day, or longer, to find the cache. One is either willing to budget that much time for the search or one isn't. You did not mention the size of the first cache, so I presume it was at least a "regular" size cache. One would know before setting out to look for locations that could conceal that size cache and to expect to spend the day looking for it. If the individual found it short order, then it wasn't really a 4-star cache ... it was actually a misrated 2.5 star cache. You also stated that "the needle in the haystack" cache was a micro cache. You did not mention whether the cache page disclosed any other site conditions; only that it also carried 4 difficulty stars. Cache pages usually disclose the size of the cache near the upper right hand corner of the page ("This is a micro [regular, large] cache"), although I don't think it is a parameter required for approval. Assuming the cache page disclosed the fact that the cache was a micro cache, one could take that into consideration when making their educated decision whether or not they wanted to potentially spend all day on it. So what is broken? Only that specifying the size of the cache on the page is not a required parameter for approval.

What do you call a group of cachers? A "Prelude to a Beer Party."

But "the numbers" certainly change ... 3 years ago, having 100 caches within 100 miles of one's home area was considered a "cache-rich" area. If 5% of those caches were "lame" or "poor quality" they amounted to only 5 caches. But these days, several "cache-rich" areas have 2,000 - 3,000 (or more!) caches within 100 miles, so even if the percentage of poor quality caches has remained constant (which I do not believe to be the case), the current caches that amount to pure dreck would outnumber the total number of caches hidden in that same area 3 years ago by 50%. That's a fairly significant change. And while people complaining about these things hasn't changed, more recently we have had people complaining about all the information they "need" that isn't included in their "PQ's." So, another significant change would be the amount of time people will waste complicating a really simple game. ... "Get coordinates, go find cache." Yep, those were the "good old days." Vague cache descriptions (if any). No clues. No parking coordinates. "Geocaching as it was meant to be."

You wrote: Those are your exact words, sweetheart. I don't see anything that says "in my experience" or "in my opinion." You may not be a terribly accurate writer, but you certainly do demonstrate an impressive ability for writing platitudes.

I disagree with that statement. Many of the very best caches I've found were very early efforts (often the first or second hide) by cache placers who had found barely a handful of caches, if ANY. It is heartening to see that a fair number of them have, over the years, maintained the high quality of their hides, but I have observed that most of the best hiders eventually "lower the bar" in order to get more people to visit their caches. Others simply stop placing caches.

Unless the admin. specifically requested that you personally visit the site and remove the cache, then my statement is accurate. You chose not to provide a link, so any facts surrounding the situation, specifically those of site and cache condition, remain unclear. Your earlier post appears to suggest site conditions were the major concern (the location was described as "disgusting"), while the latter post suggests cache condition was the problem. From the lack of information, I don't think it has been reasonably established that the cache/location was unsalvageable. Please explain it to me more slowly. But before you go to all that effort, you should take a second to rethink your statement ... If a site administrator requests an action to be taken, (in this case, the removal of a cache), permission to take such action is implicit. Those two sentences come off as being somewhat disingenous because the new-found concern with the possible impression of a "first-timer" is grossly misplaced: No such concern apparently existed during the entire time the individual (who chose to take no action until he removed the cache) was aware of the cache and its problems.

I find it interesting that it was "beneath" that individual to look for the cache until there was an approver-condoned opportunity to remove it. (From the post, the cache owner's position and/or opinion are unclear.) How did the opportunity to remove the cache make the location suddenly "acceptable?" Did the act of removing the cache improve the area in any significant way? I find those two quotes (by the same individual) make an interesting juxtaposition. As I read it, it is being stated "that doesn't mean you need to go find it" unless an approver has granted permission to indulge in "cache vigilantism." The second quote states that the individual "doesn't want to play a game where (one) needs to ask permission ... " A different individual recently wrote something to the effect that "Darwin would sort things out." It would appear so, and those days of "fire and brimstone" appear to be fast approaching.

I couldn't agree more; that's a great reason not to log online ... One can seek the caches that sound interesting and ignore the dreck, and never receive an e-mail from a cache owner that says "How come you look for HIS caches but you don't look for MY caches?" (That brings up another thought ... remember when it was considered a "courtesy" for cache owners to seek the caches of the local cachers who visited their caches?) When caches were "few and far between" and required miles and miles of driving and hiking, I used to average a couple of caches per day. Geocaching was fun and exciting, and I logged my finds in the logbook and online. Typically, seekers were immediately contacted by cache owners for in-depth feedback, conversation, and/or to swap "war stories." (Returning to that topic of "courtesy," I recall that almost invariably, e-mails from cache owners began with "thanks for taking the time to look for my cache!" Cache owners were excited, too, that people would actually go out of their way to seek their caches.) Now that a (usually micro, log-only) cache can be found under practically every mailbox, guardrail, payphone, lightpole, etc., I average a cache or two per week. From the number of caches I've seen that are in deplorable condition, from the number of caches I've seen that contain multiple scraps of soggy paper with names scribbled on them, it is clear to me that many, many cache owners couldn't care less whether you visited their cache or had fun. I suspect that some cache owners receive perverse pleasure reading the politically-correct online logs of people who made the effort to find their ("not recently maintained") cache. ("Parked 75 feet from the cache. The container had a lot of cracks and was full of water. Didn't take anything, but I left a new multi-tool in a ziplock bag, along with a dry piece of paper to use as a log. Thanks for the GREAT cache." Appreciation to the owners of caches one visits can be demonstrated through the logbook or a manner other than an online log.

That's what the logbook is for. Remember the "good old days" when one of the "guidelines" was to "email the cache owner and tell them you found their cache!"? I've never seen an online log that was written with the "business end" of a lighted cigar or twig dipped in mud (or blood.) Never saw dozens of gnats or mosquitos mushed in the pages of an online log; never saw the ink of an online log run as a result of being written during a downpour. Those are the good stories.

It depends on which setting you have chosen ... it's a user option. Geocaching is a game involving NAVIGATION, and the nautical mile (6080 ft) is the standard used in navigation. (1 nautical mile is the angular distance of 1 minute of arc on the earth's surface.) I saw an article on the internet that suggested the metric system was created by Martians, because 1 minute of arc on the surface of Mars is almost exactly one kilometer.

Of the "arctic" variety, it would seem. Personally, while caching during the rainy season, I've never waded through floodwaters higher than my armpits.

A geocaching.com account is required in order to log travel bugs online. I don't log my finds online anymore, but I still trade travel bugs. No online log is required to pick up a TB, but one must write one in order to assign a TB to a cache. I write a "Note" log that states I assigned the TB to the cache. After the TB has been assigned, I delete the note. The notes can also be used to alert the cache owner (and anyone on the watch list) to issues concerning the cache, because they receive the automatically-generated e-mail containing the text of the note (that was deleted.)

You know that "hair in the can" stuff? Perhaps Groundspeak should package the "WOW" factor in a can and sell it ... one quick squirt and the lamest of lame caches instantly transforms into the most incredible cache at the most incredible location imaginable. Call it "Lame-Be-Gone" or something like that.

Brian is obviously the person who can answer this question: Are all those "Note" logs that people write in place of "DNF" legitimate or illegitimate logs? A typical excuse in such notes is that the individual was "forced to stop searching because of approaching darkness." (The individual might have spent the entire day searching for the cache ... or the individual might have searched for 10 minutes at high noon. I suppose that in the latter example, darkness is, in fact, technically approaching, even if it is still 6 hours away.) Hey, for that matter, what about all those "Note" logs people write in place of "Found it?" (I think those are definitely illegitimate and should be deleted IMMEDIATELY!) On the other matter ... logs are actually "archived" and not "deleted" and have been recovered by TPTB in the past.